[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33171-33176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15242]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9980-73--Region 4]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund 
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing 
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site 
(Site) located in Whitehouse, Florida, from the National Priorities 
List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. This 
site is also known as the Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits Site. The NPL, 
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Florida (State), 
through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have 
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other 
than operations and maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have 
been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions 
under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002 by one of the following methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received 
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    (2) Email: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, 
[email protected].
    (3) Mail: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund 
Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    (4) Hand delivery: USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303-8960. Attention: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, 
Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch. Hours of Operation: 
Monday to Friday 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: 404-562-8819.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The 
http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not 
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use 
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    (1) USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8909, 
Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Contact Tina Terrell 
404-562-8835; and
    (2) West Regional Jacksonville Public Library, 1425 Chaffee Rd. S, 
Jacksonville, FL 32221, Monday-

[[Page 33172]]

Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday 10:00 a.m.-6:00 
p.m., Sunday CLOSED.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project 
Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, phone 404-562-8819, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    The EPA announces its intent to delete the Whitehouse Oil Pits 
Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this 
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 
which is the NCP, which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list 
of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, 
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of 
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). 
As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the 
NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future 
conditions warrant such actions.
    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site 
for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is 
using for this action. Section IV discusses the Whitehouse Oil Pits 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites 
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be 
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In 
making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will 
consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following 
criteria have been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts 
five-year reviews (FYRs) to ensure the continued protectiveness of 
remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use 
and unrestricted exposure. The EPA conducts such FYRs even if a site is 
deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure 
continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes 
available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a 
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking 
system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice 
of Intent to Delete.
    (2) The EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of 
this notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has 
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State, through the FDEP, has concurred with deletion of the 
Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to 
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major 
local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union. The newspaper notice 
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of 
Intent to Delete the site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed 
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for 
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories 
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on 
this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the 
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the 
EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary to address any significant 
public comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA 
determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional 
Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal 
Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the 
responsiveness summary, if prepared, will be made available to 
interested parties and in the Site's information repositories listed 
above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting 
the Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site is an abandoned waste oil 
sludge disposal facility located in Whitehouse, about 10 miles west of 
downtown Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The Site occupies seven 
acres west of Chaffee Road, about four tenths of a mile north of U.S. 
Highway 90. Between 1958 and 1968, Allied Petro Product, Inc. (Allied), 
disposed of contaminated acidic waste oil sludge from their oil 
reclaiming operations in seven unlined pits on the Site. Allied 
operated the Site as a repository for waste oil sludge and acidic oil 
re-refinery byproducts from 1958 until 1968. The waste oil recovery 
process used an acid-clay process to form corrosive by-products 
including waste-acid tar and spent acidic clays. Allied constructed the 
first pits in 1958 to dispose of waste oil sludge and acid from its oil 
reclaiming process, and by 1968 the company had constructed and filled 
seven pits. The EPA later found that the waste contained Polycyclic 
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and 
heavy metals, which impacted soil, groundwater, surface water and 
sediment. Allied went bankrupt in 1968 and the pits containing wastes 
were abandoned; the City of Jacksonville assumed ownership of the Site 
by tax default.
    In 1968, the diking around pit number 7 ruptured and spilled waste 
into the

[[Page 33173]]

McGirts Creek tributary and neighboring private properties. The pit was 
backfilled following this incident. The City of Jacksonville recognized 
the need to take action to prevent further spread of contamination. The 
Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch began building water-oil 
separators with limestone filters at the Site, but was not able to 
finish construction due to budget issues. Wastewater from the pits 
continued to be released into the adjacent wetland area and the McGirts 
Creek tributary. These releases resulted in contamination of surface 
water and sediment. In 1976, the Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch 
implemented a dike wall reconstruction project at the Site when an 
estimated 200,000 gallons of waste oil spilled on the adjacent land and 
creek. On June 29, 1976, the EPA Region 4's Environmental Emergency 
Branch was contacted by the City of Jacksonville following the 200,000-
gallon oil spill. The EPA began the spill assessment and cleanup of 
McGirts Creek under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, spending about 
$200,000 in the process. The EPA, in conjunction with the City of 
Jacksonville, constructed a treatment system to drain the pits.
    After draining water from the pits, the Jacksonville Mosquito 
Control Branch took measures to stabilize the ponds. Since the 
remaining viscous waste oil sludge would not support heavy construction 
equipment, the ponds were backfilled with selected construction debris, 
scrap lumber, trees, wood chips and non-degradable wastes. A three-inch 
layer of automobile shredder waste was placed on top of these 
materials. The liquid portion of the waste oil sludge was pumped off, 
mixed with a stabilizing agent, and then used as a backfill/sealer over 
the automobile shredder waste. The relatively impervious layer of 
stabilizing agent and oil was intended to prevent vertical percolation 
of rainwater. The stabilizing agent and oil mixture was covered with 
eight to twelve inches of clean earth (mostly sand). After the project 
ran out of stabilizing agent, local clay was substituted as a landfill 
capping material. The Site was then planted with local grasses and 
ditches were constructed to control drainage.
    In 1979, monitoring by the City of Jacksonville showed the 
continuing release of contaminants to surface water and groundwater 
which the City of Jacksonville attempted to address by covering the 
surface and sides of the pits and dike with six inches of low-
permeability local clay, followed by twelve inches of topsoil. This 
cover was revegetated using local grasses. The drainage was modified to 
control leachate seepage into the ditches. The dikes around the pits 
were strengthened and drop structures were constructed to control flow 
velocity and erosion in the ditches. The modified drainage 
configuration diverted surface water away from the landfill, thus 
reducing the mechanism for contaminant transport. This second 
stabilization project was completed during the summer of 1980.
    On December 30,1982 (47 FR 58476), the Site was proposed for 
listing on the EPA's NPL. The Site's listing on the NPL was finalized 
on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40865). The Site ID is FLD980602767.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In 1983, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), 
which is now referred to as the FDEP, completed a remedial 
investigation (RI) under a cooperative agreement with the EPA. The RI 
characterized Site wastes and the extent of contamination. The Site's 
RI showed contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water, and 
sediment with numerous organic compounds, including PAHs and PCBs, and 
heavy metals. In 1985, the EPA completed a feasibility study (FS), 
which evaluated risk and remedial alternatives for the Site. The risk 
assessment indicated that the greater risk was posed by migration of 
contaminants into drinking water supplies. Several alternative remedies 
were considered: No action; no action with groundwater monitoring; 
excavation with variations that included a treatment or offsite 
disposal of soil, sludges, and sediment and treatment of groundwater; 
and excavation, extraction, and treatment supplemented by construction 
of a barrier wall to contain the remaining contaminated media and 
prevent its leaching into the groundwater and surface water.
    Ultimately, several remedies were required over time to address the 
contamination or prior remedy failures. The remedies were selected in a 
1985 Record of Decision (ROD), revised in an amended ROD (AROD) in 
1992, and then further revised in the 1998 AROD based on additional 
investigations and a treatability study. An Explanation of Significant 
Differences (ESD) was issued in 2001.

Selected Remedies

1985 ROD
    Based on the findings of the 1985 RI/FS, the EPA issued a ROD on 
May 30, 1985. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) defined in the 1985 ROD 
included:
    1. Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater into the 
underlying aquitard.
    2. Prevent contamination of the local drinking water supply.
    3. Reduce or eliminate migration of contamination to surface water.
    4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat the source sludge to a less 
hazardous or non-hazardous state, or contain the release of the 
hazardous pollutants offsite.
    5. Reduce or eliminate the migration of contaminated soils and 
sediments.
    The remedy components included in the 1985 ROD were:
    1. Installation of a slurry wall around the Site, isolating the 
waste.
    2. Recovery and treatment of contaminated groundwater within the 
walled area, thus contributing to waste isolation.
    3. Removal of contaminated sediment from the northeast tributary of 
McGirts Creek and placement within the isolation area.
    4. Construction of a surface cap over the Site to reduce the flow 
of water into the walled area.
    The 1985 ROD did not provide a tabulation of specific remediation 
goals. However, the goals were generally defined to meet the FDER's 
drinking water standards and surface water quality criteria. Where no 
cleanup criteria had been established, the cleanup goals were set at 
background or minimal risk levels.
1992 AROD
    The EPA began but suspended implementation of the 1985 remedy for 
several reasons, including failure of the cap, a determination that the 
groundwater treatment methodology was inappropriate for the Site, 
discovery that the analysis of the shallow aquifer was unreliable, and 
realization that the operations and maintenance costs were grossly 
underestimated. Moreover, in 1986, Congress amended CERCLA by passing 
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which stressed 
the importance of permanent remedies. As a result, the EPA reevaluated 
the 1985 remedy and began to search for alternatives that would 
permanently and significantly reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume 
of hazardous substances at the Site. The EPA conducted additional 
studies between 1989 and 1992. These studies included a baseline risk 
assessment, a supplemental feasibility study, and a treatability study 
in 1991 to examine a treatment train of soils washing, biological 
treatment and stabilization.

[[Page 33174]]

The studies led to the EPA's issuance of an AROD on June 16, 1992 (the 
1992 AROD). Under the 1992 AROD, the cleanup objectives were to prevent 
current and future exposure to contaminated groundwater.
    The remedy components included in the 1992 AROD were:
    1. Excavation of contaminated waste pits.
    2. Separation of construction debris, stumps, etc., from 
contaminated soils and steam cleaning prior to offsite disposal.
    3. Volume reduction by soils washing.
    4. Biotreatment to biologically degrade wash water contaminants.
    5. Stabilization/solidification of biotreated material exceeding 
cleanup criteria.
    6. On-site disposal of washed soils and stabilization/
solidification of contaminant fines and sludge.
    7. Extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater using 
activated carbon and chemical precipitation, with discharge to the 
northeast tributary of McGirts Creek.
    8. Installation and maintenance of a six-inch vegetative cover over 
the excavated area.
    9. Installation and maintenance of a fence around the Site during 
remedial activities.
    10. Implementation of institutional controls (ICs), including deed 
restrictions.
    The 1992 AROD included contingencies if groundwater recovery and 
treatment were determined to be ineffective. Contingencies included:
    1. Containment measures involving engineering controls or long-term 
gradient controls.
    2. Waiver of chemical-specific ARARs for the aquifer based on the 
technical impracticability of achieving further contaminant reduction.
    3. Institutional controls for groundwater.
    4. Continued monitoring of on-site and off-site wells.
    Cleanup goals were developed for soils and groundwater in the 1992 
AROD. Following the signing of the 1992 AROD, the EPA issued special 
notice letters to initiate negotiations with the potentially 
responsible parties (PRPs). Because a settlement could not be reached, 
the EPA proceeded with a fund-lead remedial design. During the design 
phase for the 1992 AROD remedy, the EPA discovered most of the 
components of the treatment train identified for source materials would 
not work. For example, lead concentrations and pH levels encountered in 
the waste sludge would be toxic to bacteria, rendering biological 
treatment ineffective. In April 1994, the EPA and the PRPs, the 
Whitehouse Remedial Action Group (WRAG), signed an Administrative Order 
on Consent (AOC) under which the PRPs conducted the additional studies. 
The results of those studies indicated that additional treatability and 
feasibility studies were required. In January1995, the WRAG agreed to 
modify the AOC with the EPA to perform the additional work. After 
completing these additional studies, the WRAG prepared and finalized 
the supplemental treatability and feasibility study (FS) in July 1997.
1998 AROD
    Based on the treatability and feasibility study findings in July 
1997, the EPA issued an AROD in September 1998 to incorporate elements 
of the contingency remedy in the 1992 AROD, as well as elements of the 
original 1985 ROD. The 1998 AROD addressed all contaminated media at 
the Site by containing the onsite waste sludge, contaminated soils, 
wetlands, sediment and groundwater. The remedy's function was to 
isolate the Site as a source of groundwater and surface water 
contamination and reduce the risks associated with exposure to the 
contaminated materials.
    The major components of the selected remedy included:
    1. In-situ stabilization/solidification treatment of lifts 1 
(topsoil and clay) and 2 (thin layer of shredded foam rubber and 
plastic overlying a layer of sawdust, wood chips, dimensional lumber, 
debris and silty sand) with a geogrid to enhance structural stability.
    2. Installation of a slurry wall (slurry wall or geosynthetic sheet 
pile wall) to isolate and contain contaminated soils, sludge, wetlands, 
sediments and groundwater.
    3. Installation of a lime curtain inside the containment system to 
adjust groundwater pH.
    4. Construction of a low permeability cap over the contained area 
that meets Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure 
requirements under 40 CFR 264.228(a)(2).
    5. Realignment of the McGirts Creek tributary to optimize the area 
of groundwater containment.
    6. Extension of the municipal water supply to residents along 
Machelle Drive and Chaffee Road and plugging of private supply wells.
    7. Installation of a permanent security fence around the 
containment area and installation and maintenance of appropriate storm 
water management controls.
    8. Monitored natural attenuation of contaminated groundwater 
outside the containment system.
    9. Sampling of offsite surface soils and downstream surface water 
and sediment during design to determine if additional measures are 
necessary.
    10. Imposition of deed restrictions to control future land and 
groundwater use.
    The AROD established cleanup goals for groundwater and soils based 
on federal or state primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or risk 
based numbers. These cleanup goals and the source of the cleanup level 
can be found Tables 8-1 and 8-2 of the Final Risk Assessment, dated 
September 1, 1991, and Table 2-1 of the Final Remedial Action Report. 
Soils contaminants of concern addressed by the remedy include organic 
compounds (Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Bis (2-Ethyl Hexyl) Phthalate, 
Chlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorochlorobenzene, Di-N-Butyl Phthalate, 
Methylene Chloride, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) 1260, 2-
Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, Phenol, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene and 
Trichloroethene) and inorganic compounds (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, 
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead and Nickel). Groundwater contaminants 
of concern include organic compounds (Acetone, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, 
Bis (2-Ehtyl Hexyl) Phthalate, Carbon Disulfide, Di-N-Butyl Phthalate, 
Ethylbenzene, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, 3/4 Methylphenol, Naphthalene, 2-
Methylnaphthalene, Phenol, Toluene, Trichloroethene and Xylene) and 
inorganic compounds (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, 
Copper, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Selenium, Vanadium and Zinc).
2001 ESD
    An ESD was issued in 2001 to remove the lime curtain from the 
selected remedy due to concerns that it might adversely affect the 
sodium based slurry wall. The ESD also increased the size of the slurry 
wall, size of the cap, and area of the tributary to be realigned based 
on the discovery of additional contamination.
    Remedial action objectives (RAOs) established in the 1985 ROD and 
adopted in the 1998 AROD address groundwater, surface water, sludge, 
sediment and soils. The 2001 ESD did not alter the original RAOs. The 
RAOs include:
    1. Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater into the 
underlying aquitard.
    2. Prevent contamination of the local drinking water supply.

[[Page 33175]]

    3. Reduce or eliminate migration of contamination to surface water.
    4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat the source sludge to a less 
hazardous or non-hazardous state, or contain the release of the 
hazardous pollutants off site.
    5. Reduce or eliminate the migration of contaminated soils and 
sediments.

Response Actions

    Response actions are discussed above. Construction of the remedy 
began in 2003 and was completed in May 2007 with the finalization of 
the Remedial Action Report. The City of Jacksonville, now the owner of 
the property comprising the Site, entered into a restrictive covenant 
with FDEP on January 27, 2011. This institutional control restricts 
activities on the property and the future use of the property.

Cleanup Levels

    Groundwater sampling events have occurred at the Site since August 
2006 when the first year of operations maintenance and monitoring 
(OM&M) began and have continued over the last ten years under the 
thirty-year OM&M Plan. The groundwater levels are determined inside the 
barrier wall and groundwater levels and monitoring data are collected 
at monitoring wells outside of the barrier wall. Contaminants 1,4-
dichlorobenzene, chlorobenzene, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, 
di-n-butyl phthalate, and PCB-1260 were sampled for during the first 
quarter of groundwater sampling. The sampling verified that these 
contaminants were not found at detectable levels outside of the barrier 
wall and would not require monitoring during future sampling. Manganese 
has been detected at levels slightly above the State of Florida 
secondary MCL of 50 ppb upgradient and downgradient of the contaminant 
source. Therefore, the elevated manganese levels are not thought to be 
Site related. Monitoring for manganese will continue and action will be 
taken if levels continue to be elevated and are determined to be Site 
related. All other groundwater COCs were monitored regularly over the 
last ten years and their detected levels were below cleanup levels; 
this includes groundwater arsenic concentrations which have largely 
been below 1 [micro]g/L. The highest reading was less than 2 [micro]g/L 
which is well below the current MCL of 10 [micro]g/L. Groundwater is 
the only media that is monitored at the Site because the remaining 
contamination in soils and sediment is contained within a barrier wall 
and cap that prevents lateral contaminant migration.

Operations, Monitoring and Maintenance (OM&M)

    The OM&M Plan for the Site was approved by the EPA and OM&M 
activities began in July 2006, and continue to this day. The scope of 
the OM&M Plan included monthly Site inspections to monitor the 
following components, except for passive gas management (quarterly) and 
wetland planting monitoring (semi-annual):
    1. Closure cap.
    2. Passive gas management system.
    3. Storm water management system.
    4. Created wetland planting areas.
    5. Site security system.
    6. Groundwater monitoring system.
    In addition to inspecting the remedial components above, the cap is 
mowed on a quarterly basis. Originally, water levels of wells inside 
and outside of the barrier wall were monitored on a monthly basis to 
evaluate the performance of the barrier wall. Groundwater wells were 
sampled semi-annually for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Semi-
Volatile Compounds (SVOCs) and metals. In April 2013, the EPA and FDEP 
agreed that sampling could be limited to metals. Now, the monitoring 
program consists of semi-annual monitoring of 23 wells for metals only 
and semi-annual water level monitoring of 23 wells and 6 piezometers. 
At this time, all sampling data are below cleanup criteria. The Site is 
owned by the City of Jacksonville, which is part of the WRAG PRP group. 
ICs are maintained by the PRP group through OM&M inspections. City/
county zoning and permitting requirements for land and groundwater use 
in the area add another layer of protection.

Five-Year Reviews (FYR)

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the 
EPA's FYR Guidance, statutory FYRs are required for the Whitehouse Oil 
Pits Superfund Site because the completed remedy does not allow for 
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The first FYR was completed on 
November 13, 2008, which was five years after onsite construction 
activities began. The second FYR was signed on May 7, 2014 and 
indicated that the remedy was still protective of human health and the 
environment. A multilayered cap covers all impacted soils; a barrier 
wall contains the contaminated groundwater; and the municipal water 
supply was extended to residents who live near the Site. The cap, 
together with the containment provided by the slurry wall, prevents 
contamination from entering the groundwater and migrating offsite into 
the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment.
    The 2014 FYR stated the remedy was protective only in the short 
term and included two issues and recommendations. The Operations, 
Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) Plan did not include contingency 
activities to address groundwater overtopping the containment area and 
internal flow gradients had not been adequately monitored to assess the 
structural integrity of the containment system. Recommendations were 
made to continue to monitor metals concentrations in the groundwater 
and to modify the OM&M Plan. The OM&M Plan was modified in June 2015 to 
include more specific contingency actions to address groundwater 
overtopping the containment area and include monitoring of groundwater 
flow gradients inside and outside the barrier wall to assess the 
effectiveness of the containment remedy. Monitoring of groundwater for 
metals continues. Required actions were completed to make the Site 
protective of human health and the environment. However, the EPA does 
not consider groundwater overtopping the containment area to be a 
justifiable concern for several reasons: (1) The average depth of the 
barrier wall was designed to extend through the full depth of the 
surficial unconfined aquifer and key into the underlying semi-confining 
strata (estimated to be 40 ft.), thus, there can be no lateral or 
vertical movement of groundwater into the containment area; (2) the 
entire Site is covered with a multi-layered cap system with a 
permeability of at least 1E-07 intended to shed any rainwater falling 
on the cap; (3) the cap system has a network of internal drains which 
carry any flows penetrating the cap to the ditch system surrounding the 
cap; and (4) there is no evidence that groundwater levels within the 
barrier wall are trending up. The Site will continue to be monitored as 
part of the OM&M Plan and the next FYR is due May 2019.

Community Involvement

    Community involvement activities were undertaken throughout the 
thirty-year history of the Site in the form of public meetings, FYR 
interviews and Site update mail-outs. There are currently no major 
community concerns about the Site. The FYR community involvement 
process will continue to monitor any potential community concerns.
    The residents of the surrounding neighborhood stated in the 2013 
Site interviews that they are concerned about periodic flooding that 
occurs in

[[Page 33176]]

their yards after heavy rains. However, the main factor that is 
contributing to flooding in the McGirts Creek floodplain is not Site 
related; the construction of dams by beavers in McGirts Creek is 
responsible for flooding problems in the area. In the past, the beaver 
dams were removed by the Site contractors as a courtesy, but has never 
been part of the actual OM&M Plan requirements. The beaver dam issue 
has been communicated to the residences of the surrounding neighborhood 
and the residents are responsible for taking any action to remove 
beaver dams in the future.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup and 
protection specified in the RODs for the Site for all pathways of 
exposure. The selected remedy at the Site is protective of human health 
and the environment because all exposure pathways that could result in 
unacceptable risks are being controlled. Contamination remaining onsite 
is being contained to the capped portion. The barrier walls were 
designed and constructed to contain the contamination and prevent any 
lateral or vertical movement of groundwater in or out of the 
containment area; ICs are in place in the form of land and groundwater 
use restrictions. These ICs are in the form of a Declaration of 
Restrictive Covenant executed between FDEP and the City of 
Jacksonville. This IC was executed on the 2nd of February 2011, and 
restricts activities on the property and the future use of the 
property. All selected remedial and removal actions, remedial action 
objectives, and associated cleanup goals are consistent with the EPA 
policy and guidance; the EPA has followed the procedures required by 40 
CFR 300.425(e) and these actions, objectives and goals have all been 
achieved and, therefore, no further Superfund response is needed to 
protect human health and the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., 
p. 193.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-15242 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P